Elaboration of Cultural Capital

While I appreciate that in Chapter 2, MacLeod outlines the theoretical framework that will allow us to better analyze and generalize the experiences of the Hangers and the Brothers, I don't think he does a good job of providing concrete examples. For example, although he explains the points of view of the various theorists, he doesn't use examples to back up their points. I understand that since the rest of the book is mostly empirical the author may find it unnecessary, but I think it would be useful for understanding what he means by, say, cultural capital.
That said, I think we can all draw examples of this concept in our own lives. I'm going to generalize here and say that most Rhodes students come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (middle- to upper-class) and educational tracks (Gifted, Target, Advanced, or Magnet anyone...?). Even the way we interact with our professors is representative of what Bernstein explains as elaborated linguistic codes. We've been socialized as children to question and to respond to questions posed by authorities rather than just responding to directives. I wonder what the results would look like if a study analyzed who takes the most advantage of office hours...working-class kids or "privileged" kids--I'd take a gander that it would be the latter.
So, it's interesting that MacLeod points out that schools don't cater to working-class students, because even on the most basic level of conversation it is true. What would a school look like that does cater to all socioeconomic groups, I wonder?

Possible Speaker for Class

 
Class,

I may have found a speaker to talk to our class on the 4th. Emily Jackson, one of the members of our common ground group, may be able to come and talk to our class, but she has to check her schedule, said she would contact me if she is available. Ms. Emily, an 80 year old lifelong Memphis resident, has had a fascinating life, having been raised in Foote Homes, rode on segregated busses, attended Lemoyne Owen College, been part of the Memphis civil rights movement, and had many other interesting experiences. As the other members of our group can attest, not only is she a living piece of Memphis history with a fascinating and storied life, but she is also very well spoken speaker and an excellent story-teller. I truly believe that our class would benefit from and enjoy her presence and her experiences.

Nathan

"Walkability" Plans for Riverfront

I heard a planner named Jeff Speck talk about walkability and downtown development yesterday. His report is pretty interesting. I thought you may all be interested in checking it out. They are his "quick fixes" for making the riverfront a destination and revitalization of downtown. I have my own opinions, but here are his. Many of his make sense.  Speck talked about Bass Pro & the Pinch, selling off 4 acres of riverside real estate, Mud Island, and Beale Street Landing-things that we have also talked about-

Good Intentions: a Moot Point

We have briefly discussed at times the recent apparent white middle class investment in rougher areas of Memphis, I know at least with the Sears Crosstown building. It has become somewhat of a trend among, as the articles say, young educated professionals to move into lower income and frankly unlikely areas. Memphis is paying more and more attention to blighted areas with residents who cannot themselves improve their surrounding neighborhoods. This attention has been and is widely considered positive, but as these articles point out, many improvements we celebrate make the area unlivable for the people who actually live there.

Whatever the intentions of the outsiders making these investments, Brown-Saracino is making the argument that the consequences of their actions cannot be good. Distinguishing between gentrifiers and social preservationists is moot, because even social preservationists cannot en masse have a positive or preservative effect on their surrounding communities. So, the question is, would Brown-Seracino argue that social preservationists should be discouraged? I would say yes. Even after detailing the good intentions of social preservationists, Brown-Seracino points to responses of this group regarding how they separate themselves from “old-timers.” Social preservationists said they could identify old-timers often by race or occupation.

It looks to me as though Brown-Seracino's terminology turns on appearances. Gentrifiers appear disinterested in the benefit of the preexisting communities they join. Social preservationists appear to join communities on the pretense of enjoying those communities. But the effects are the same: the preexisting communities are changed and driven out. And, because of that, the intentions are moot, and neither should exist.

Gentrifiers vs. social preservationists

I find Brown-Saracino's distinction between social preservationists and gentrifiers fascinating, and it both puts into words and helps explain some observations that I've had in my neighborhood at home and in Memphis. Whenever I have observed the gentrification process of a community (like the Munjoy Hill area in Portland, ME that Brown-Saracino described -- which is about a mile from my own neighborhood), it seems that there is a conflict between the social preservationists and gentrifiers, typically over space. The gentrifiers seek redevelopment of space, with some exceptions for historically significant buildings. Social preservationists seem to be more concerned about the "old-timer" residents, yes, but while presumably taking the old-timers' concerns into consideration, the way that the social preservationists define who is an old-timer can complicate the situation. 

For instance, like Brown-Saracino mentioned, Munjoy Hill was populated by white working class families as well as Sudanese and Somali families, many of whom had come to Maine with refugee status in the 90s and early 2000s. When gentrification really kicked into gear, who would be considered an "old-timer"? Whose space and livelihood would be considered authentic and worth preserving? The white middle class families had lived on "The Hill" for generations, and family names are well-known by the community. The African families, on the other hand, were more recent additions to the neighborhood scene. Their close-knit ties to each other, the schools, and community services as well as their own local businesses had quickly established a strong connection between these families and the Hill.  I don't really know the answer to this, but as I question the process of gentrification of Munjoy Hill, I venture to assume that if old-timers' needs were taken into account, it was those of the white working class families. I do know that now, a majority of Somali and Sudanese families live outside downtown Portland, far from resources, in a secluded area of public housing. 

These readings, along with many we've read for this class so far, were very frustrating to process and reconcile. The major question I'm left with is: how can social preservationists and gentrifiers, who must mean well, ensure that all their pioneering and preserving does not hurt or displace anyone who had ties to the old community?

Preservationists in the city

I thought that Brown's article about preservationists versus newcomers was a fresh approach that changed my mindset a little bit about the idea of gentrification.  In big cities, it seems that there is often very little push back from gentrifying a neighborhood.  It seems to be an inevitable shift that happens in many communities.  It seems that there are so many aspects that promote gentrification (economic, social, businesses, etc) and there seem to be very few forces trying to push back and create more diverse communities or maintain them as they are.  However, in rural areas this seems to be the opposite.  There is a very strong push-back against newcomers and they are often never fully incorporated into the communities.  In this situation (for example in Brown's descriptions of Leyden and Provincetown, MA) the residents themselves seem to be pushing back against the newcomers.  This made me think about the possibility of this occurring in a big city where neighborhoods are being gentrified frequently.  However, if residents in these communities (particularly if they were poor minorities) pushed back against an influx of newcomers they would probably be seen as hostile rather than "social preservationists."   There also doesn't seem to be the same sense of pride in most city neighborhoods because the populations are changing so frequently.  Is it possible for this idea of social preservation to occur positively and productively in inner city neighborhoods?

Hipster Cities

So while reading Lloyd and Brown, I could not help but be amused by the ironic connections that gentrification and social preservation link in to the hipster community of their times. Time and time again, Lloyd and Brown referenced the authenticity of communities both in rural and urban areas. I could not help but chuckle at imagining the different groups discussed who are angry about more middle class white residents moving into an impoverished human neighborhood, though without really taking into account the responses from "authentic natives". It seems that the only voices heard are from the middle class who have the social and economic mobility to locate themselves to a place such as Andersonville or Wicker Park. Consequentially, there is a failure to discuss the race factors at play in the gentrification, from an African American perspective.

It is possible to get caught up in the aesthetically pleasing elements of a small town or an urban neighborhood, while completely dismissing the existing social, economic, and political ties existing in the neighborhood. While it may seem like the answer is social preservationist, I would also argue that they dismiss the fluidity of people and often create an entitled, selective perspective on the history of place. Both social preservationists and gentrifiers stake their claims in a community and assign tenets for the value and standard of a community that is not theirs to begin with.

Ideally, there could be a community that is formed without the staking claims on authenticity, but a collaboration of various heritages, flavors and walks of life. Both groups seem to be more invested in their own definitions of what the community is supposed to be than improving the conditions for all members of the community. Is it possible that comfort and preference have trumped the discussions of the presence of poor in a community? Why can't there be a collective bond over a community's common interests and improvement than the competition for ownership and "I was here before it was cool"? Is it possible that communities like Wicker Park, Argyle, and Leyden are overly focused on establishing an image or identity that is exclusive and non-penetratable for outsiders, that the insiders in the community may often lose out from a thriving community?